1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2825 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Energy Act (Bill No. 148). Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2825

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2825

Mr. Fraser — 2825

Mr. Phillips — 2825

Mr. Wallace — 2827

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2827

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2828

Mr. Phillips — 2828

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2828

Mr. Phillips — 2828

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2829

Mr. Gardom — 2829

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2829

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2829

Mr. Phillips — 2829

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2829

Mr. Phillips — 2830

Mr. Gardom — 2830

Mrs. Jordan — 2830

Mr. Morrison — 2830

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2830

Mr. Gardom — 2831

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2831

Mr. Phillips — 2831

Mr. Gardom — 2832

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2832

Mrs. Jordan — 2832

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2832

Mr. Chabot — 2832

Mr. Smith — 2832

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2833

Mr. Gardom — 2833

Mr. Smith — 2833

Division on

section 95 — 2833

Mr. Smith — 2834

Mrs. Jordan — 2834

Mr. Phillips — 2834

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2835

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2835

Mr. Gardom — 2835

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2835

Mr. Smith — 2836

Mr. Chabot — 2836

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2837

Mr. Smith — 2837

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2837

Mr. Wallace — 2837

Mr. Smith — 2838

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2838

Mr. Wallace — 2838

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2839

Mr. Wallace — 2839

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2839

Mr. Smith — 2840

Mr. Phillips — 2840

Mr. Schroeder — 2840

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2840

Mr. Wallace — 2841

Mr. Chabot — 2841

Mr. Phillips — 2841

Mr. Morrison — 2841

Division on

section 114 — 2842

Mr. Gardom — 2842

Mr. Fraser — 2843

Mr. Chabot — 2843

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2844

Report stage — 2844

Cattle Industry Development Act (Bill No. 32). Committee

stage.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2844

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2845

Report stage — 2845

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Committee stage.

Mr. Barrett — 2845

Mr. Gardom — 2847

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2845

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2847

Mrs. Jordan — 2846

Mr. Gardom — 2847

Mr. Wallace — 2846

Mr. Chabot — 2847

Mr. Chabot — 2846

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2847

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2846

Mr. Phillips — 2848

Mr. Gardom — 2846

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2848

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2847

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British

Columbia Act (Bill No. 120).

Committee, report and third reading — 2848

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill No. 175). Committee

stage.

Mr. Curtis — 2848

Mrs. Jordan — 2851

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2849

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2851

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2849

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2852

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2849

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2852

Mr. Curtis — 2849

Mrs. Jordan — 2852

Ms. Brown — 2849

Division on

section 19 — 2853

Mr. Gardom — 2850

Mr. Chabot — 2854

Mr. Liden — 2850

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2854

Mrs. Jordan — 2850

Mr. Chabot — 2854

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2851

Report stage — 2854

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Act (Bill No. 176).

Committee and report stages — 2855

Division on third reading — 2855

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1973

The House met at 2:15 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to

committee on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 148, Mr.

Speaker.

ENERGY ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill No, 148; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 76 and 77 approved.

section 78.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Sections 78 and 79 seem to be

pretty sweeping in terms of revealing information on costs of

operation. I wonder whether the Minister will give us some

indication of why it is necessary to insist upon such complete

information being provided, which might, of course, fall into

the hands of a competitor. I wonder whether he might mention

why it is necessary to have such complete powers in this area

for reporting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): One of the most

closely guarded secrets in the western world has been the real

cost of a barrel of crude oil. Now, the Alberta commission went

to great lengths, and they found that they could determine that

cost of a barrel of crude oil. They found that it was a little

more than it should be, in terms of the price that was charged

to the consumer.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little more, or less?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a normal information

section that will enable

our B.C. Energy Commission to review the accounts and determine whether or not

there are excessive charges that are being passed on to the consumer. It has

to be pretty wide, and it is taken from the old Act. If we want to protect the

consumer, we must have the facts. Don't you think the oil companies would be

glad to supply the facts, so that we can try to determine the true cost of a

gallon of gasoline? They'd be glad to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My own personal view is that they might

well do so. I am not so sure, though, whether you want to have

other people who might be licensee of a station, or something

of that nature, providing information on that base. It seems a

bit much, but I will accept the Minister's explanation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 78 pass?

Sections 78 and 79 approved.

section 80.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, this

section as

applied to service stations is just a bookkeeper's nightmare.

It will cost them more to hire accountants than their whole

business is worth, and I wish you would take a look at

that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it is most unlikely you would

apply that to a service station, really.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 80 pass?

Section 80 approved.

section 81.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. This is a clause that gives pretty wide-sweeping

powers, in my humble opinion, to the commission. The clause

reads:

"The commission and any person authorized by it, for that

purpose, may, at any reasonable time, enter upon or into any

oil refinery, storage plant, depot, building, office, or

establishment used in connection with the petroleum industry,

and may inspect: and examine the premises…"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is not necessary to read the

section, Hon. Member.

[ Page 2826 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I wanted to impress upon the Members

here in the Legislature and the public this lovely Saturday

afternoon, just how far-reaching this

section is. As far as I'm

concerned, the commission could use this to obstruct the normal

operation of any business, not necessarily just an oil company,

any wholesaler, any service station operator, anybody who

handles the products of a petroleum company, the offices of a

petroleum company. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, it

is just more Gestapo tactics that are not really needed at

all.

It is not necessary. This is like the labour bill, where the

Minister of Labour has the right to go in. This is not

necessary at all, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the term "Gestapo." I think that is unbecoming in this

House.

MR. FRASER: Oh, no! That's a proper word.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For you guys it is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the Hon. Member to

withdraw the use of the term "Gestapo" as applying to tactics

or methods of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw the word "Gestapo." It's

more dictator powers — nothing is sacred any more. But

what amazes me, I can't understand why the commission has the

power to designate any other person. And this is where you

could find a person, maybe a friend of the party who wants to

find out how this business is operating, how Joe Doe is

operating his business down here, and maybe he doesn't have a

union, and this guy wants to find out. So the committee

authorizes him to go into this place of business.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: For the purpose of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: For the purposes of the bill. Certainly. What

are the purposes of the bill? To control completely every stage

of the petroleum industry in British Columbia. That's the

purpose of the bill. You know it and I know it!

Say an oil company is friendly with the government, maybe

even the oil company that the government plans on owning. The

fellows who are operating a refinery that the government owns

are not doing very well, so the commission says, "Well here,

fellow, you come here. I authorize you to go into this

successful refinery, find out how they run their books, find

out how they refine this gasoline, find it all out, and then come back here to the government

refinery."

You are planning on going into the oil company business, Mr.

Chairman, and you can use this

section of the Act to find out

how successful operators run, and you can steal the ideas from

them. It's allowed here under the Act.

It's a very dangerous Act, Mr. Premier, very dangerous, and

not really required under the terms of this legislation. You

know, this commission is going to be the most bureautic…

(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Bureaucratic?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a new word, I just turned that out this

afternoon. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell it for Hansard ?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the side note on this clause

says "power of entry and inspection," and it frightens

me. It really frightens me, because it's just one more instance

of where the government can go into the offices of an

individual businessman and snooper-dooper-booper. Another

snooper. We passed one last Saturday morning and this is just

one more.

When we have finished this Legislature I am going to go back

and find out, and make a

summary, of how many snoopers this

government has authorized to go into the offices and business

places of private industry and private business to snoop

around. I am going to run a survey, and I bet that even the

Premier will be surprised.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We haven't hired a Phil Gaglardi.

MR. PHILLIPS: I bet you even the Premier will be surprised.

I think, Mr. Attorney General, that you should explain to the

people of British Columbia, this lovely Saturday afternoon,

why, and what you intend to do with

section 81 — why it

has to be in there. Explain how far and how broad you intend to

use these powers that we are granting you here this

afternoon.

This is getting to be a cliche in this House —

granting the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce wide, sweeping powers, granting the Premier wide,

sweeping powers. It seems to be the name of the game here. Each

piece of legislation has something about the right to go in

and

[ Page 2827 ]

snoop around. Explain to the people of British Columbia, Mr.

Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am asking through you to

have the Attorney General explain to me, and then after I have

heard this explanation, after he has relieved my mind…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you promise to vote for it if I

give it a good explanation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You were relieved of your mind a long time

ago. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier's even saying he wants to take my

mind now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier wants my mind! I hope he knows a

good thing when he see it! (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not a lost and found department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we

should welcome the Cubs who have just entered the House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Do the good

deed and get on with the debate. (Laughter).

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't know whether they'll learn more

here than in the great outdoors, but I hope so.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, and despite the extravaganza of the

former speaker, we are also concerned about this

section which

I am sure the Attorney General or the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce again will tell us is the kind

of

section present in many other Acts. I'll anticipate his

answer.

We feel there is this ever increasing frequency with which legislation comes

before this House in which the individual is becoming more and more subjected

to this danger. While the intention of the

section is good and while obviously,

there must be some measure of access if the government is to make this bill

function and if the commission is to function… It is rather like the principles

we were discussing yesterday regarding the development corporation. While we

recognize that government must govern and commissions must function, we certainly

would like again to emphasize that there is real danger in this kind of section.

We would urge the Minister as the Minister in charge of this

legislation that in setting up the commission every reasonable

precaution must be taken to avoid the dangers that individuals

will be unreasonably harassed or their business interfered with

or that they are subjected to unnecessary intrusion by

officials and bureaucrats from this commission.

It has been repeated too many times, I suppose —

certainly through this bill and other bills, but I think the

people of this province and the people of industrialized

countries realize the ever-increasing degree to which

government is interfering in various ways, however

well-intentioned. Let us not ever forget that sometimes simple,

well-intended interference can in fact lead to very undesirable

dictatorship and intrusion into the rights of the

individual.

Although I am willing to go along with this section, I want

to sound the note very clearly and unmistakably that it could

easily be misused and abused. I would plead with the Minister

that when a commission is set up, that phrase "any person

authorized by the commission to enter property for inspection

purposes" — that person must be very carefully selected

and supervised in his duties.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree with that completely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 81 pass?

Section 81 approved.

Sections 82 to 84 inclusive approved.

section 85.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This a curious section, Mr. Chairman. If

a person feels that the price set by the commission is

inadequate to meet his operating costs, apparently the

commission can come in and take him over completely. He doesn't

have the right to close down or to store his product, whatever

it might be. If he fails to supply an adequate quantity of any

petroleum product, the commission may exercise powers of

section 114. And

section 114, if we can step ahead because it

is referred to in this section, says that the commission may

forcibly or otherwise enter upon, seize and take possession of

the whole or any part of the business and the real or

[ Page 2828 ]

personal property of any energy utility affected by the

order, et cetera.

I wonder whether this is really referring to any person in

the petroleum industry or whether it was meant to refer to the

major utilities and not to the smaller people. The fact of the

matter is,

section 114, which I quoted, will be used under

section 85 to go after the small people just as much as after

the big.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's quite possible because it says: "to

sections 114 and the provisions of

section 114 apply with the

necessary changes…and so far as they are applicable."

So, we have a situation where some small person may feel

that with such-and-such a product the commission is simply

being unreasonable, and yet he cannot withhold it if he has it

on his shelves or he cannot stop selling that product. He has

to keep in business in that product. The result would be that

if he failed to do that, they'd come in like gangbusters and

they may forcibly or otherwise enter upon and seize his

personal property among other things. Surely, in the light of

the tremendous powers that are granted to this Commission,

section 85 simply goes too far.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course under 114

referred to there, they can take possession; that's not

seizing, but it's a pretty strong power. No, I just say that it

is not take-over. You don't take over ownership of the thing,

you step into a public…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he's refusing to operate it, The

situation is that the owner is refusing to operate it in such a

way that public supplies are being cut off. Now, utility

legislation usually provides — and this provides —

that in that situation a utility can't go on strike where the

public will be badly hurt.

Now it's not going to happen with a small gas station

because there are other gas stations in the vicinity, so there

would be no reason to think the public supplies were being

jeopardized. It could happen, as in the 1940 situation, where

all of the refineries of the province went on strike. They did

that — the cars were coming to a halt on the streets of

the cities of B.C.

So in effect, it's saying to the petroleum industry, as we say to the water

utilities, to electric generation and other things upon which the community

depends for its life and health, that you can't go on strike. Property can't

go on strike against people. But I agree with what the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) says — this commission must do its work in public; it must file a report

with this Legislature. Aggrieved people will, I hope, write to their MLA if

they've got a case. We'll hear about it in this Legislature, I'm sure. And we

should hear about it in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 85 pass?

Section 85 approved.

Sections 86 to 89 inclusive approved.

section 90.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: This section, Mr. Chairman, gives two men of

this five-man tsar commission we're setting up the powers of

the supreme court.

Section 90 — powers of examination,

gives this commission the same power the supreme court has to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No I'm not mixed up. The commission has all

the powers, rights and privileges vested in the supreme court.

You say I'm on the wrong section, Mr. Premier — you

better read the legislation. Now this is going, as far as I'm

concerned, just a little further than is really necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Allow the Attorney General to explain,

please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite willing to allow the Attorney

General to explain.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the commission — these

people — under this

section can't make any decisions.

This is evidence-gathering. Instead of the commission going up

to Taylor, they could send somebody up and have an examination

of the person up there, and have them give their evidence. Just

as in a supreme court trial, not necessarily every witness

comes to the trial — some are examined in Alberta or in

another place, and their evidence can be read by the supreme

court judge when he makes a decision. It's got nothing to do

with the commission's decisions as such. It's

evidence-gathering, similar to a trial.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, why don't you write that into the

section then, instead of saying that they have all the rights,

powers, and privileges vested in the supreme court?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the Second Member for

Victoria.

[ Page 2829 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney

General's remarks. However, the commission, in the very centre

of this

section 90, has the powers of the supreme court in the

enforcement of its orders, as I understand this. Now I quite

agree that for taking evidence, for depositions, or for things

of that nature there can be a very real need to put in such a

provision. But as far as the enforcement of orders goes, and I

think particularly of

section 114, I really worry whether we

haven't gone too far this section. Could it not be restricted

to the area of taking of evidence, inspecting documents and

perhaps even entering on property? I don't know. But, when you

get into enforcement of orders, I think you are going pretty

much in the direction that the Hon. Member from Peace River

mentioned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: A very good point that has been raised. Because

with every respect, Mr. Attorney General, your

interpretation

is limited, but the

section itself is not limited. Your

interpretation is limited only to the attendance and

examination of witnesses. You made a very credible case with

the necessity for that point. Howsoever, as mentioned by the

Member for Peace and the Member from Victoria, it goes much

beyond that. It includes the rights, powers, and privileges

vested in the supreme court concerning the entry on and

inspection of property and enforcement of orders. Well, I

suppose it means that the commission's going to be able to

almost order the sheriff. You can have contempt proceedings;

you can have seizure proceedings — all under this. So

that's really a little more than the examination of witnesses

de bonis non …or something like that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're quite right, that's the second

part. It's the same as the Public Utilities Act —

section

69 was and still is until this new Act is passed. I haven't

heard of any complaints about the old PUC in this respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to amend it, Mr. Chairman

— that

section 90 be amended by striking out "the

enforcement of its orders." If it is not necessary to have line

4 of

section 90 I would like to move that we delete the words,

"the enforcement of its orders."

Amendment negatived.

Section 90 approved.

section 91.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: In

section 91 the commission goes a little

further in its complete, autocratic, dictatorial powers. It now

has the right to enter, the rights and privileges of the

supreme court; it doesn't even have to follow legal precedence.

There goes 100 years of common law and legal precedence down

the drain by one foul sweep of the Attorney General.

Are you going to give yourself that power too or use it

through the commission? I can see that's what you want. A

hundred years of legal precedence goes down the drain.

This commission can set its own course of justice, Mr.

Attorney General. You are creating a monster here that even you

won't be able to control because it might turn on you. Did you

ever think of that? It might turn on you and devour its creator

— that's what might happen.

When you name this commission it is going to have more power

than the Premier, and heaven knows we've given him enough power

in this assembly this session. He took it; he's been asking us

to give it to him. Now you are giving this commission more

power than the Premier has and more than you have yourself, Mr.

Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Hon. Member would give the

Attorney General an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we wrote this

section with

the Member for South Peace in mind. It says, "The commission

shall make its decision upon the real merits and justice of the

case, and is not bound to follow…" moth-eaten legal

precedent. I thought you would like that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hold on, you haven't got the floor.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But you have to make this distinction:

the commission makes decisions on questions of fact, such as

what the price of electrical energy should be in such-and-such

a locality. When it makes that kind of a decision it is not

bound by legal precedent obviously — or even its own

precedent, since it might change its mind.

But when it comes to the appeals and whether it is bound to

observe the rules of fairness and natural

[ Page 2830 ]

justice and so forth, it is bound by legal precedent. This

has nothing to do with appeal on points of law. If the

commission errs by not giving notice to somebody or deciding

the thing on the basis of discrimination or taking into account

factors that are really not proper factors to be considered

under this Act, then legal precedent comes, and the lawyers are

happy to appeal decisions from this tribunal — as they

have in the past from the Public Utilities Commission.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Attorney General has just told me is

that this five-man commission can stumble-bum around the

province — fall down, trip over themselves, obstruct and

do everything else, but that's O.K. They don't have to follow

any path, any pattern; they don't have to do anything. If they

trip over themselves and fall into somebody's rose garden,

that's tough. The person who owns the rose garden has no

comeback.

If they err in their own ways they can justify it because

there is no legal precedent. I'm not a lawyer; am I

interpreting this right or not? I'll leave it to my friend the

lawyer to tell me if I'm wrong. I'm just a layman and I have to

try and analyse this legislation on this lovely Saturday

afternoon after working nearly 50 hours this week. And besides

this, the Premier wants to take my brain away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Well, what the Attorney General has again done

by his explanation is to say, "They have the right of appeal

according to law." You agree with that, don't you?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: "Yes, of course they do," he says. They

have the right of appeal on questions of law. Right? And law is

made up of precedent. Right? Yes, but you're not bound to

follow legal precedent.

Wait a minute — that's tough to follow, isn't it?

(Laughter). The Attorney General has snowed us — saying

there is appeal if legal precedent is wrong, but they're not

bound to follow legal precedent. Well, this has been a bad day

for the Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't intend to get

into a legal argument, but I just wonder — if it can't be

settled here between the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey and the Attorney General, what

chance does the general public have? With all these courses of appeal that the Attorney General

says they have, how are they going to know if they can appeal

or not? The Attorney General says he can, and the Hon. Member,

who is a very fine lawyer — shall I give him another ad:

an outstanding lawyer and soon to be one of the finest judges

in British Columbia — says that he can't appeal, as I

understand it.

If Joe Public or Joe's Esso goes to two lawyers and pays

them both, what sort of legal advice has he got?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Premier, I agree with you, but I'm

not here to keep lawyers in business. That's not what this

Legislature is for.

Seriously though, I've sat here and I'm no genius.

(Laughter). I appreciate your consideration. And that's the

problem, There are a lot of people in British Columbia who

aren't geniuses. There are a lot of us working and carrying on

our lives and doing our business in what we believe to be a

legal and proper fashion, and it's for these people that I am

speaking.

What chance have they got to really know where they stand

under this Act? What chance do they have when this zoomer from

the commission comes roaring and lists everything out and they

then get the resulting offer from the government for their

business on a competitive basis that was based on their own

books. If he wants to appeal it, what chance does he have, Mr.

Attorney General? If he does go to one lawyer and gets one

opinion and goes to another lawyer to get the other, who's

going to pay his costs? The average small business can't

possibly afford this sort of financial imposition.

There's just no way, on the basis of the explanation here,

that we can support this

section at all. As the Attorney

General knows when he saw some of the people in the business

yesterday — and he was very kind and we appreciate it

— they just don't know where they stand. This is another

clause that concerns them very, very greatly. We can't support

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I wonder if we couldn't solve

this a little easier — since we're going to no longer

require them to follow legal precedent — by having the

Attorney General tell us what his definition of "real merits"

is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, let's say a level of prices or

charges to the public — that's the kind of decision the

commission makes, you don't follow legal precedent when you're

setting a level of, say, electrical rates. Everybody who has

taken

part in this debate is quite right. The Member is quite

right that

[ Page 2831 ]

we have eliminated legal precedent from the questions they

decide about the level of prices. I'm right when I say that

legal precedent still applies in terms of the fairness of their

procedure and that kind of appeal. The Hon. Member from Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) is quite right because he has straddled both

sides of that particular point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: If what the Attorney General said is correct,

then he can quite easily restrict this

section to mean only

just that. But the way it stands today, it will grant the

commission completely ad hoc powers to act without legal

precedent in any area whatsoever. Which means it can — I

don't think it will — but it can definitely avoid or

evade the laws of natural justice; it can avoid or evade the

law of having a fair hearing, and it can make itself a law unto

itself.

For all practical purposes, when you have this

section in

here as it stands, there couldn't be any kind of appeal

whatsoever, even on the question of law, because it does not

have to follow the law. Maybe if you at least would include

something which is not the strongest legal phrase, to the

effect that the principles and the laws and the precedents of

the laws of natural justice shall apply. Then at least you

would have something. But you've really thrown the baby and the

bathwater and many hundreds of years of legal precedent right

out of the window, the way this thing is phrased.

I gather from the remarks that the Attorney General has made

this afternoon that, in fairness, I don't think that the

section means what he wants it to mean. But this is the way it

can be interpreted in a court of laws.

Mr. Attorney General, you know as well as I do that when you

get into a case in a statute such as this you are certainly not

going to run into a very liberal

interpretation of the statute,

when a supreme court judge would take a look at this. You'd be

complaining that the commission has not followed the principle

of natural justice in permitting people to come, say, to be

heard, and they have not followed the legal precedents which

would be standing about 6 feet high on this one topic of the

law alone. Well, by golly, they don't have to do it. They don't

have to follow it. That's all that the commission would have to

say.

I think the suggestions raised by the Members for Peace, the

Member for Okanagan, and the Member for Victoria are not

unreasonable suggestions. We think the power is too strong.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This becomes a rather esoteric legal argument, but

the Member mentioned precedents stacked "this high." Where do they come from?

A whole bunch of them are precedents of appeals under our old Public Utilities

Act — not on the decision but on natural justice. And this

section comes right

from our existing Public Utilities Act .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The word "strictly" has been dropped.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Then we've improved it a little bit.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, don't say it's exactly the same if

it isn't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: O.K. Well, not exactly. But it is

section 70, basically, of the old Public Utilities Act .

There have been appeals and legal precedents have been quoted

by lawyers at great expense to their clients under this

Section

itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: I said at the outset of the debate, Mr.

Chairman, on this Energy Act, that we should have five

Acts. I'll say that again. I'll settle for three. We should

have

an Act for energy resource management; we should have one

to regulate energy utilities; we should have another one if you

want to regulate the petroleum industry.

Now, what you're doing here, under

section 91, applies to

the entire Act. You're proving to be a very good lawyer this

afternoon, because when you stand in this Legislature all

you're referring this

section 91 of this Act to is public

utilities. You mentioned electricity and the price of natural

gas.

You go back and apply

section 91 to the regulation of the

petroleum industry. This Act gives this commission power to go

into anyone in the petroleum business — every service

station, every depot — and use

section 91 of the Act.

We've got more of this type of legislation this year where

you're able to, under the motherhood clause, say that we want

to control this. But it gives you further reaching powers than

we are able to estimate, and this is the type of legislation

you have been bringing in all this session.

You walk in and you say to the commission, "Here's a dollar," and when they go to deposit it in the bank they find

the commission has taken their bank account away. That's

exactly what you're doing to the people of British Columbia,

under the guise of doing away with the gimmickry, as you call

it, in the oil and petroleum industry you are taking unto

yourself the power under this section, through the commission,

to use this power to regulate the entire petroleum industry,

which I guess you must consider…

[ Page 2832 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've already debated that.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've debated it! I'm telling you I'm going to

have to tell the people of British Columbia what action you've

written into this Act. It's shameful, absolutely shameful, Mr.

Attorney General!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm going to have to tell them you're a

redneck. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, your off-the-cuff flippant remarks when

we're discussing something serious in this Legislature this

Saturday afternoon, leads me sometimes to doubt your ability to

be the Attorney General of this province.

As I say, you're creating a monster here, under the guise of

motherhood, saying you need this power. Well, Mr. Attorney

General, I'm going to vote against this, and I'm going to tell

the people of British Columbia what power you're giving this

commission. It's unheard of in the annals of a democratic

society!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I hope that I've got a cure. I may not, but I

hope that I've got a cure.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope you have, too!

MR. GARDOM: The

section reads this way, very quickly, Mr.

Chairman. It's only two lines — "The commission shall

make its decision upon the real merits and justice of the case,

and is not bound to follow legal precedent."

Now, I think we should add these words: "except as to its

procedure." I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Shall the amendment standing in the

name of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

pass?

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is going to be billed for

that advice. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 91 as amended pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of

those who are not lawyers, could we please have an explanation

from the Hon. Member for Point Grey as to what this will

do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Attorney General care to

respond to that question?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It makes it plain that they must abide

by the rules of natural justice, which I think they had to

anyway, but I am glad to have my friend clarify that. That's

fine.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order on this

matter. We voted on this amendment before it was on the table,

really. I've proposed amendments and they've been ruled out of

order because they weren't on the table. Once they reached the

table they were ruled out of order. I just want to make sure

that that amendment is in order before we vote on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. Shall the

amendment to

section 91 standing in the name of the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

Amendment approved.

Shall

section 91 as amended pass?

Section 91 approved.

Sections 92 and 93 approved.

section 94.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River on

section 94.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On

section 94, Mr.

Chairman. This

section has to do with the matter of the

commission receiving, accepting or in some manner gathering

evidence before them. In the first part of this

section it says

that the evidence under this Act may be gathered upon

affidavit, written statement, report, and so on, "or upon

evidence obtained by it in such. other manner as it may

decide."

Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney General,

that "such other manner as it may decide" could include

wire-tapping or the use of secret agents of one type or another

— in other words, a complete invasion of the privacy of

the individual by the corporation.

I know that the Attorney General, being a lawyer, would be

concerned about any Act that was passed in the province that

would give those types of powers to the government.

Certainly he spoke himself about the invasion of privacy in

this House many times, and it seems to me that the provisions

in that

section of the Act, as it is written, far exceed, Mr.

Chairman, any real require-

[ Page 2833 ]

ment by the government under this Act.

The Attorney General must realize that when you write into

an Act a statement that says that you can obtain evidence in

any manner that the commissioners may decide, that is a power

even beyond the power that the provincial government has. I

would suggest to the Attorney General that it's a poor

section

and that it should be withdrawn or redrafted to prohibit the

commissioners from going beyond what is recognized in the

courts of law as the proper procedure for gathering

evidence.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think the Member should

appreciate that wire-tapping is something under the Criminal

Code. That is a separate matter from this. It is an important

point but basically this means that it isn't a strict court.

You may remember that even at this session of the Legislature

we passed the Evidence Act amendment in respect to

doctors' reports being admissible without having to call the

doctor into court.

Perhaps there will be a report of the energy commission of

the Province of B.C. where they found certain facts and

statistics; they could look at that and in their discretion

accept that as evidence at a hearing without going back into

regrouping those statistics or calling all the witnesses all

over again. Boards of this kind act in that kind of informal

way. That is all it is intended to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 94 pass?

Section 94 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have leave of the committee to re-open

section 91 so the wording may be properly changed for the

amendment?

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the wording is exactly the same as

before. The same words but they have been inserted in a

slightly different place, and my thanks to my learned

colleagues at the Clerks' table for that advice.

Section 91

will read now, "The commission shall make its decision upon the

real merits and justice of the case, and is not except as to

its procedure bound to follow legal precedent."

It is exactly the same thing — the words have just

been put a little farther into the middle of the sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 91 as amended pass?

Section 91 approved.

section 95.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we have an additional

section to 94 dealing with the matter of evidence and facts

obtained, or any question of fact before the commission. This

section of the Act places the commission above the courts. It

says in the final

section of the Act that any matter of fact

within the jurisdiction is binding and conclusive upon all

persons and all courts. In other words, whatever the commission

decides is above and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of

law of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Attorney General, with due respect, it's

not really a price level that you are talking about. We are

talking about a power contained within this Act which refers to

every form of energy in the Province of British Columbia.

Section 95 places the commission in establishing a question of

fact above and beyond the courts of this land. We do not accept

that premise, Mr. Chairman, and we think it would be very

remiss of the government if they accepted that premise.

Section 95 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Calder

Skelly

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 12

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Curtis

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.

Williams, L.A.

King

McGeer

Hartley

Brousson

Cocke

Bennett

McClelland

Lewis

[ Page 2834 ]

Section 96 approved.

section 97.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we run into the same

type of procedure and the same type of legal language that is

outlined throughout this entire Act. In resolving a question of

fact, even though that may have resulted in a court action, the

commission does not have to accept the court decision on a

question of fact. As a matter of fact, the commission puts

itself in a position of resolving the same question even after

a supreme court decision may have come down on that matter.

They completely disregard, in this respect, the court

procedures of the province and of this land. We can't support a

provision within

an Act that places the commission above the

courts, even to the extent of deciding a question again which

has already been decided by the court and going a different

direction if they desire to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman

— but I speak to him as the Attorney General — as I

understand it you are virtually giving this commission the

powers and the right to formulate its own laws and act outside

the law of Canada.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, yes you are, Mr. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's exactly the same as the PUC.

MRS. JORDAN: I would suggest, with due respect to the Hon.

Member, that the Public Utilities Act was here for a long time,

had amendments and certainly may well have been due for more

amendments. That is no excuse for a fresh, vigorous, democratic

government to excuse poor legislation such as this —

swamp legislation, as it has been called.

It's embalming a whole new industry and where the public

utilities has been brought into the debate today, Mr. Chairman,

has been in relation to services which have a captive audience.

This is an invasion of a whole industry, not just the big

companies, but layer after layer after layer, or arm after arm

after arm of the industry.

The petroleum itself is the trunk and it's a whole tree of

people with small businesses which you are invading through

this Act. You're giving the commission the powers to invade this tree

like a bunch of termites, and to starve this tree and not be

answerable to the laws of the land.

I used the term "termites" — I probably should have

used the term "codling moths." When you have an apple tree

growing, you feed it and there's the trunk and the fruit comes,

but if that's invaded by pests or codling moths or termites or

whatever else, then you destroy the whole crop. This is what

you're doing. You bring in a spray or deterrent to bring the

tree back into production.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to

this section?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman — I'll be glad

to.

You're allowing this tree of a whole industry within a

series of industries to be put in a position where it can be

destroyed and not questioned, because you're giving this

commission the power to make its own laws and act

outside the laws of the land. We can't possibly support that.

You should change your mind; you should withdraw this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

I would ask all Members to keep their remarks strictly relevant to the

section

under consideration. We've already debated the principle of the bill and I would

ask them to confine their remarks to this particular section,

MR. PHILLIPS: This

section 97, the Attorney General just said, is in

the present Public Utilities Act , but what the Attorney General didn't tell

the people of British Columbia is that the old Public Utilities Act didn't have

jurisdiction over every service station in the province, over every bulk operator

in this province, over every tank truck operator in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon…

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about this

section of the bill and

its wide-ranging ramifications on the petroleum industry!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's still not clear to the Chairman that you

are speaking to this particular section. Will the Hon. Member

please…

MR. PHILLIPS: I am speaking to this

section as it applies to a new area

of jurisdiction. What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Attorney General

is saying

[ Page 2835 ]

that this clause was in the old Public Utilities Act . So it was, Mr.

Chairman, so it was. But the old Public Utilities Act didn't have

section 4

in it, that's what I'm saying.

Section 4 pertains to individual enterprises

in this province — individual enterprises in this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Same terms nothing! Get out of that! You can

go into a barge operator who is barging oil up the Liard River

and send your commission in having all these wide powers. I

don't want the Attorney General to tell the people of this

province that this is good legislation because it was there

before…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of this section, I

believe, is the powers of the commission to determine questions

of fact, pending litigation, and I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to that point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman,

and make it perfectly clear that we can't have this old

motherhood rising up in a cloud of sunshine, when down here the

dark clouds are just the same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 97 pass?

Sections 97 to 99 inclusive approved.

section 100.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The power here is to determine what will

happen in the case of any complaint. We are giving the entire

power to determine whether or not a complaint will be heard and

handled to the very people against whom the complaint will, in

all likelihood, be made. So we are in the situation where the

people who may have a genuine complaint may be thwarted by the

fact that the people to whom they have to go and request to

have their complaint heard are the very people who gave them a

hard time in the first instance. Now, that doesn't appear to me

to be a very fair or equitable way of approaching the problem

of complaints.

I realize that there can be frivolous complaints — we politicians probably

see as many frivolous complaints in our correspondence as any other group in

society. I realize that there can be great difficulty in areas such as this,

but I wonder whether the Attorney General would like to indicate what guidelines

he might be giving to the commission to make sure that if there are genuine

complaints they get a fair hearing and that it's not a question of the same

people determining whether the complaint will be heard as the people complained

of.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sometimes complaints of this kind, even

before the Labour Relations Board, are determined by

correspondence, for example. If it then comes to a point where

a verbal argument and lawyers are desirable, fine, but it may

be a small service complaint. They should have the power to

determine that and make a quick decision sometimes without a

formal hearing — that's all it does.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If it's a big one they'll hold a

hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 100 pass?

Sections 100 to 102 inclusive approved.

section 103.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Just one item in dealing with this public

hearing — one can only be held, I should say, when it is

in the opinion of the commission. I think, Mr. Attorney

General, that it would not be an unreasonable suggestion to say

that a public hearing can be held when directed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or by the Legislative Assembly,

and have those words added to the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member proposing an amendment?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, and I'm just wondering whether he would

like to accept that. It reads at the moment: "A public hearing

shall be held whenever, in the opinion of the commission, a

public hearing is in the public interest." I'd add these words:

"and/or when a public hearing is directed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, or directed by the Legislative

Assembly."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you write the amendment out, and bring

it to the table?

MR. GARDOM: It's written out, Mr. Clerk.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Possibly the amendment, if it's

accepted, can be subject to the Law Clerk's dressing it up in

proper legal language.

[ Page 2836 ]

MR. GARDOM: That is satisfactory, because it's nice to have

a lawyer working on these things as they come into this Act. I

mean during working hours because, outside of working lawyers,

lawyers are not better than anybody else. I move the amendment,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Well, certainly I think the Hon. Member who

preceded me in this debate has pointed out one of the problems

that is involved in

section 103 — that is, as it stands

the public hearing will be held only in the opinion of the

commission.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is limited by

section 102(l) —

"except in case of urgency…"

MR. SMITH: Yes, but "…as to which the commission is the

sole judge, the commission shall not make any order involving

any outlay…" and so on. This is a public hearing that we're

talking about in

section 103 and at the present time it's only

at the discretion of the commission itself.

I would support the amendment because this broadens it at

least to the point where we have some other authority. Perhaps,

just going beyond that, there should be some way of spelling

out how the petroleum industry or any other energy-using or -creating body in the province could get to a public

hearing if the commission denied them that privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 103 pass?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 103 as amended pass?

Section 103 as amended approved.

Sections 104 to 107 inclusive approved.

section 108.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT:

Section 108 — more powers for the

commission.

MR. PHILLIPS: Powers by the hour.

MR. CHABOT: "Where the special circumstances of any case so

require, the commission may make an interim ex parte order

authorizing, requiring, or forbidding anything to be done that

the commission on application, notice, or hearing, is empowered

to authorize, require, or forbid."

So it is the power of an exparte order, ex parte injunction.

I'm surprised to see this in this legislation because not too

many days ago the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) here

indicated to certain segments of the labour movement that he

didn't believe in injunctions. It was only a matter of time

until he closely examined it and the possibility was that they

would remove what they considered to be court interference in

labour disputes.

You also talked about injunctions when you talked to the

people of British Columbia. You didn't believe there was a need

for injunctions in your new deal for people last August.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just in the labour field.

MR. CHABOT: Well, this might be in the labour field. This

could involve the labour field. Are you telling me that it will

never involve the labour field?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Hon. Member would give the

Attorney General an opportunity to respond.

MR. CHABOT: Perhaps, and perhaps not. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's your privilege, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I've listened to Members stand on this floor,

especially the Member for Alberni, in years gone by, fight

against these injunctions — the power of injunction, the

power of interference. He used to violently attack these court

injunctions when it was related to labour disputes. We don't

know whether it's going to be related to labour disputes here.

It doesn't say so. It's just blanket power given to this board.

In your new deal for people you said that these kinds of powers

and these kinds of interferences were repugnant to your way of

thinking, and yet you enshrine just the reversal here in your

section 108.

So you can't have it both ways, Mr. Attorney General; you

must be consistent. Your philosophy has been against

injunctions and now you're backing off by printing

section 108

that gives the power of an ex parte order on the part of this

awesome commission.

And I want to say that not only have you said that you are

opposed to injunctions, but…

[ Page 2837 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In labour disputes. It's nothing to do

with this.

MR. CHABOT: This could involve a labour dispute —

you'd better believe it could. Yes, it certainly could. It

certainly could get involved.

I think the B.C. Federation of Labour has taken a strong

position this type of ex parte order. I'm pleading this

afternoon — and it's not very often I do that — on

behalf of Mr. Haynes in consideration for his way of thinking

relative to these kinds of injunctions. Give him consideration.

Remove this

section from the Energy Act .

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This has nothing to do with any labour

situation, because it is only for the purposes of the

commission and they have no labour functions whatsoever. It's

an emergency stopgap power that's given for a short period of

time — it says "interim" — to protect a community's

life or health in an emergency.

Now, let's take an example. An electrical energy company

refuses to serve or diverts its power away from the town of

Golden. You have a fruit processing plant in Golden, and if

they don't have the power and the freezing, a perishable crop

will be destroyed. Then the commission makes an interim order

— "Until we have a chance to hear on this matter, don't

cut off the supply of power to that processing plant or to

those homes." It's purely interim — then the hearing

follows.

I assure you it will only be confined to that kind of

emergency situation.

MR. CHABOT: But it could involve a labour dispute. It

certainly could. Injunctions are sought through the courts in

labour disputes — and they're issued by the courts

— to prevent substantial or irreparable injury to

property or to safeguard public order. You're insinuating that

it would never be used under these circumstances. It can

be used under these circumstances and it could be circumstances

that are related to a labour-management dispute.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it's restricted to something that

the commission is empowered to authorize, require or do. I can

assure you it will have nothing to do with

labour-management.

MR. CHABOT: Well, if a labour-management dispute was doing

irreparable injury or damage to property or public order, the

commission would have the right to interfere. It would have the

right under

section 108 to interfere. Absolutely.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 108 pass?

Section 108 approved.

Sections 109 and 110 approved.

section 111.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River,

MR. SMITH: Here again we have a provision within this Act that the commission

can deputize — as a matter of fact, the provision says that the people who enforce

our laws are ex officio officers of the commission, and can be requested and

shall be required by the

section of this Act, to enforce any regulation or law

that the commission desires, without going through any further procedure than

to call upon any sheriff or police officer who is appointed by the province.

It seems to me that this is a type of provision that should

not be included in the Act. I think that the commission should

have to show just cause as to why they would require the

services of a peace officer within the scope of the power that

is actually in their jurisdiction, before the peace officer or

sheriff or whoever was required to act upon their behalf.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will only be after the commission

considers it very carefully. They have to consider it very

carefully and they don't want to have their own enforcement

staff of a lot of people, so they call upon the public officers

as they've done in the past.

MR. SMITH: Then it is not the intent of the Act to set up a

separate force that would be attached to the commission for the

purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I would hope not. Because it would

be very seldom that you would have to call on a sheriff. Most

companies and utilities obey the directions of the old PUC and

they will this one.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Regardless of the

Attorney General's feeling that this would rarely be used, it

is very specifically stated in this

section that sheriffs and

peace officers are ex officio officers of the commission. The

one word that I think is very significant is the word "obey."

They are just told by the commission — there isn't any

question of doubt whatever in this section.

I've tried not to get up on every

section because there is

so much running through this whole Act. The word "power"

repetitively is putting the individual very much at the peril

of extreme power at the hands

[ Page 2838 ]

of a commission. I simply must get up on this

section

because I think it is one of the most dangerous sections.

While the Attorney General has assured us, nevertheless,

there is that one word, if none other, that these peace

officers and sheriffs will "obey" the instructions of the

commission. It isn't the instructions of a court that the

sheriff is subjected to here, or has to obey without any choice

— it is, in fact, the instructions of an appointed

commission. I must express our serious concern at this kind of

power being in the hands of the commission and being able to

tell law officers and making them obey the instructions of the

commission.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: One further comment on the matter, Madam

Chairman, and that is that in this Act you have the greatest

powers without checks and balances of any Act that has ever

come before this Legislature. Then you include in that the

provision that the law officers of the province must "obey" the

orders of the commission without, even to the extent that they

themselves may feel that whatever is being asked of them is

beyond their powers. Yet you say to them, "You enforce the

orders of the commission because we so dictate, or we suggest,

or we request." This is certainly far beyond anything in the

way of justice that we should have to face in the Province of

British Columbia or any other part of Canada. To provide that

section in

an Act goes far beyond anything that I am sure the

Attorney General intended it to.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to prolong the debate,

Madam Chairman, but a person can be taken out of a beer parlour

and forced to fight fires. It's an emergency. A private

citizen.

Now, here we are not doing that, but we do say that in

emergencies… As I say, the life and health of a community

could be involved and some interruption of services, for one

reason or another. I don't think it is likely to happen. But

that's the only occasion when this kind of standby authority is

needed.

Then you may say you need the police officers to help out,

to prevent irreparable damage to property and health. It can

happen, but it's not likely to happen. There has been no abuse

under the old Act; I wouldn't expect there would be under this.

I certainly don't intend to allow it to happen.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 111 pass?

Section 111 approved.

Sections 112 and 113 approved.

section 114.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Once again, Madam Chairman, I must say that

section 114 strikes fear into our hearts. Although the Minister

said a few minutes ago under

section 111 that he did not

anticipate setting up any separate police force — and I

accept his word on that unquestionably. Nevertheless, the

wording in the

section says," …employ such persons as it

considers necessary for the enforcement of any order…"

Now, I would be interested to hear which persons the

Minister has in mind, and who would enforce the order. We have

already got the sheriffs and peace officers in 111. If we are

not setting up some separate disciplinary body under 114, who

is he referring to when he says "…employ such persons,…for

the enforcement of the order…"?

Further in that same paragraph there is this whole question

again of forcible entry of a property if necessary. There is no

mention of any search warrant or any reasonable measure of

protection, apparently, under

section 114(1). This commission

has the unlimited power to do as it sees fit. It may feel that

it is justified in entering to seize and take possession of the

business.

There again we are back on this very basic point that the

citizen, the individual, or the people in dealing with the

energy utility really seem to have very little protection

against pretty extensive power given to the commission —

first of all, to employ people as enforcement agents, and

secondly, to move in "forcibly if necessary." I presume they

could break the doors down, or take some forceful measure to

get onto the property without a search warrant.

Really, it would seem to me from the Minister's own

confidence in the way in which the people would function, and

the history of utilities so far, that this power will be rarely

needed, according to the Minister — so why have it in the

Act at all? Maybe he can tell us how rarely this power has been

used under the old Act. Has it ever been used?

I think the wisdom of good legislation is to strike this

balance between providing what is necessary, but protecting at

all times the individual and society. I would submit, Madam

Chairman, that maybe what should have been done with this

section, and perhaps with many sections of this Act, is that

if, in the course of experience and time, events prove that

there is not enough power in the Act, surely the Minister can

come back to this Legislature, asking amendments to this kind

of

section to provide the power which is lacking.

I think it is an unfortunate action of the govern-

[ Page 2839 ]

ment in this Act, that it has gone in the other direction,

and is providing in

section 114, and in all the other sections

we mentioned, more power than is reasonable or appears to be

needed, except on rare occasions. I would wonder if the

Minister wouldn't like to comment on the possibility that if we

have to run any risks, the risks should be run in the direction

of the bill not having enough power, and being capable of

amendment that gives him the power.

I think certainly in 114 we have gone too far in the other

direction in creating authority of enforcement and forcible

entry, and lack of search warrant, et cetera. If time and

events show that this degree of power is needed, then I think

the Minister would have no trouble proving to this Legislature

the need for an amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To begin with, we are talking only about

energy utilities, not the little gas station. Secondly, I think

that this power, in effect, means that in an emergency where

light, heat or power was cut off to a community or a

section of

a community, it may be that the commission would have to, in an

interim way, run that service, or see that it was run, and

employ an acting manager.

Now it hasn't happened, I think, in the Province of British

Columbia — we'll leave aside that gasoline strike. It

hasn't happened, but I think it is the existence of these

powers that perhaps means that it doesn't happen. I would hate

to think that we would have to convene the Legislature because

— I hate to name a utility — some utility refused

to supply an essential service to a community. So the power is

there, and it has been there traditionally.

MR. WALLACE: Might I just ask a supplementary, question?

With respect to the Minister, several times this afternoon, in

answering questions, he has repeatedly told us that it is this

rare emergency occasion. I just have to ask the equally simple

question. Why is it not in the section? Several times, Madam

Chairman, the Minister has given a very reasonable answer,

saying that it is this rare occasion, and usually the

possibility of danger to life and health of people because of

some emergency interruption of service.

I'm sure many individuals in the community when they read of

this kind of debate, where we are just hammering back and forth

this same theme all afternoon, will wonder, if it is just for

these rare emergency situations, whether such a qualifying

phrase could not be included in the section. It would give us

all a sense of reassurance.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point, Madam Chairman, I have

checked with the previous Act — the Public Utilities Act

— and these sections do occur. We have had no word from

the Attorney General as to how often those powers were used. It

might be helpful if you would let us know, because we could

then get some idea of whether or not they have been used in

emergency situations only, or whether they have been used more

frequently.

It's as well to point out that while this section, 114, does

talk of energy utilities, it is referred to in other sections

of the Act. I think specifically of 85, which I mentioned

earlier, which brings into effect this particular

section as

applicable, say, to something which is not a power utility.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're right, but 85 has been

passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 85 may have been passed, but

there is no need to sort of say, "Well, you may be right, but I

told you that time," which I think is essentially what

you are doing.

The fact is that it has a wider application than the actual

words of this

section say. It has a wider application because

at least one other

section says, "114 applies," and if

there are any adjustments needed to make it apply the

commission can go ahead and do that.

The Attorney General talked of emergency situations where

light, heat and power might be cut off. There is no question

that that can happen. B.C. Hydro, among others, might be at

fault, and might be attacked by the commission under these

sections.

Still, the sections which give an "open Sesame" to seize, to

enter, forcibly or otherwise, to take over the operation are

unacceptable to us. Certainly they are unacceptable unless they

can be explained in terms of the need with reference to the

previous sections of the previous Act.

If the Attorney General comes up with reasonable

explanations in terms of past experience, perhaps we'll be able

to accept this

section and the subsequent sections, which are

similar. But without that type of explanation, I'm sorry, but

the word "emergency" which is constantly cropping up, simply

doesn't impress us. Why not have search warrants? Why not use

the legal system? After all, the Attorney General is the very

man — if I can exaggerate very slightly — who owns

the legal system. He is the guy who is on top of the whole

thing, or should be, at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's either on top or on bottom.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, at the moment he is

[ Page 2840 ]

on top of it. He could, I'm quite sure, arrange for search

warrants to be handed out, provided he can persuade one of his

many judges that his point of view is reasonable and persuade

him to sign a search warrant. Then, perhaps, the scruples of my

party and the other people on this side of the House would be a

little more satisfied. The fact of the matter is that now it is

unlimited — unfettered. There is no need to declare an

emergency.

If you put that in, I wouldn't mind. If you said "the

commission must declare an emergency in such and such an area,

and after such a declaration they can move in," that I

might accept as well. But there are none of these provisions

regarding emergencies, there is no provision to go near the

courts, and we think, under the circumstances, in dealing with

property and civil rights as you are, you just should amend

this

section substantially and bring it back to this House in a

different form.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, the points that were made by the

two previous speakers, I think, are well taken, in that there's

no reference in this

section to emergency situations.

The other thing that disturbs me, Madam Chairman, is the

fact that all during this debate the Attorney General has told

the opposition in this House that he considers the petroleum

industry a utility, an energy utility. He has said that

repeatedly in remarks during this debate.

Now if that's the case he's not in any way exempting the

petroleum industry from the provisions of

section 114. As a

matter of fact, I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that it is the

full intention of the Attorney General to make sure that the

petroleum industry is included and will be covered under the

provisions of

section 114 of this Act.

If it is as he said, to be considered on the same basis as

other sources of energy of other utilities in the province then

it will, in fact, become an energy utility under the sections

of this Act and will be treated in the same manner as any other

energy source or utility in the province. For that reason, if

for no other, we certainly will not support this section.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairman, I just want to endorse the words of some

of the previous speakers and to point out to the Hon. Attorney General that

if this

section of this Act were aimed at the labour union movement there would

be a complete province-wide strike tomorrow. Because they just wouldn't stand

for it! Yet the Premier wants to force

section 114 — at one phase of our life

in British Columbia all the energies in a complete petroleum Act.

The Attorney General, Madam Chairman, says that he has great

concern for the well-being of all the people in British

Columbia. I expect, Madam Chairman, that he will show this

great concern by bringing in similar legislation in the case

where the good of the general public is at stake when there is

a strike in a particular industry.

Now, if he is going to bring it forth, if he believes in

this type of legislation, I suggest that the Attorney General

take these powers upon himself over all phases, because you

might as well.

I certainly am against this type of police-state power that

we are giving this commission — this two-man commission.

I am going to vote against it, Madam Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Break the door down.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): In

section 114(3) there is a phrase

that gives even further powers to the commission — powers that would allow the

commission to take action that would cause irreparable damage.

It says, "For the period of time that the commission

continues to manage…" Whenever they come in to take over a

utility, they can take over the management of that utility. But

while they are there they can do anything they wish, even with

the employees of that commission, "including the employment and

dismissal of officers, managers, or employees of the energy

utility and the employment of others."

In other words, if they find a utility that is perhaps not

following the wishes of the commission, they can walk into that

utility, stay there just long enough to rid that utility of its

managerial staff, hire other staff, and then let the utility go

back to its normal operation. This is a power that I find

obnoxious, and I would like to have some guarantee from the

Minister that says this is not the intent of this bill, as it

appears to be in the cold, hard writing over here.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It may be necessary to step in and run a

utility with all those powers, but I certainly wouldn't think

it would supplant, say, a labour union agreement that would

give some employees security of tenure. No, I wouldn't

think

[ Page 2841 ]

so. This is stopgap, essential legislation that was brought

in by the Social Credit government. Oh, what a government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. No, I take that back! Strike it off

the record. If the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) is

threatening to resume his place in the debate, I want to

withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Withdraw the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will not point out to the House that

this is

section 95 of the old Public Utilities Act , for

fear of projecting that particular Member back into the

debate.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, I would just like to ask a

supplementary question. The Minister has answered that this

kind of power is necessary to deal with what could be a very

serious situation. Is it not a fact that the government has,

for example, in another action which it took in relation to

land which had very abrupt and severe ramifications to

individuals…? Could not the same action be taken by

government even if this power did not exist specifically within

this Act?

If there were energy utility on strike or in some way not

functioning, is the Minister trying to tell the House that,

without this power specifically in this

section of this Act the

government does not indeed have the power to control such

emergency situations?

Here again, I'm trying to make the point, Madam Chairman, that we are going

far too far with the legislation, when really the power for the rare control

of emergency situations already exists in the hands of government. I would like

the Minister to answer that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't think of any other power that would protect

society in those circumstances, without convening the Legislature. Maybe somebody

can, but I can't.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you. The Attorney General consistently

refers back to the powers of the PUC, using it as a

justification for the inclusion of these awesome powers which

he has enshrined in

section 114 of this Act.

I am wondering whether his

interpretation of

section 114 is similar to the

interpretation the Premier put on the Land Commission Act when he used the parallel

of the Municipal Act , in which he quoted only one subsection of a

section and

failed to quote the other sub-sections. There is a strong possibility that you

are probably misinterpreting this

section the same way as the Premier was misinterpreting

and misleading the powers…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: The Premier was misinterpreting the powers that

were contained in the Land Commission Act when he went

out on that hotline and told the people of British Columbia

that there is no difference in the Land Commission Act ,

that there is no more power than was contained in the

Municipal Act …

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly confine your

remarks to the

section under debate,

section 114 of this

bill?

MR. CHABOT: I am relating it to this Act, just the way the

Attorney General is relating it to the Public Utility

Act . He is saying that it has no more powers here in

section 114 than are contained in the PUC Act. That is what the

Premier said on the Land Commission Act . But he didn't

quote the full

section to the people of British Columbia.

I have my doubts as to whether you are interpreting the

Public Utilities Act correctly.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say, Madam Chairman, that

section

114, which is a

section evidently taken out of the Public

Utilities Act — I will have to say again that the

Public Utilities Act did not apply to the petroleum

industry and all the individual operators in this province.

Here under

section 114, Madam Chairman, the commission has the

power to go in and do all this and then turn around and charge

the utility for it, if they want to.

It is bad, bad legislation. I'm going to vote against

it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I would just like to ask a question at this

point about these pieces of information which were given to us

throughout

section 114 and other parts of this Act. At some

future date, when we need to refer to these, can we also use

that information as factual, which instructed…?

(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: You can read it out of

[ Page 2842 ]

Hansard .

MR. MORRISON: Can we read it out of Hansard when we

get into problems?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know if it is factual or not; it

depends from what

section of the House it emanated.

MR. MORRISON: I will accept that all right, Madam Chairman,

provided that we can accept those things that the Minister has

given us, then.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 114 pass?

Section 114 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Calder

Skelly

Lea

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 13

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Anderson, D.A.

Curtis

Wallace

PAIRED

Williams, R.A.

Williams, L.A.

King

McGeer

Hartley

Brousson

Bennett

Lewis

section 115.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Madam Chairman, I'd like to address myself for a few moments

section 115. You know, the granting of excessive powers, Madam Chairman,

is one of the greatest dangers that face the democratic society. This has really

been the bulk of the whole of today's debate. We find here another open-ended

excessive power, with just a faint hope — we'll hear from the Attorney General

— that the club may not have to be used. "We want to have the big club but we

may not hit you with it." I don't think that's enough.

It's a ghastly section. I think it's a democratic fright.

It's the type of horror you'd best find in the waxworks across

the street in the horror department. It's a complete abrogation

of the principle of the recognition of individual property

rights. Under this section, if an order is made by the

commission and an energy utility fails to comply with it

— any order, however small it may be — or if the

energy commission itself makes up its own mind that there isn't

any effectual means of compelling the energy utility to comply

with the order, then lo and behold comes the power eventually,

via the Attorney General and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to dissolve the energy utility,

without compensation, without redress, without appeal, without

the right to courts — legally laser beam it right out of

existence; make the existent non-existent.

That would be just like putting the NDP cloak right over an

energy utility like this and saying the magic words:

"Abracadabra — The toe of gnat, the wing of bat; Double, double, toil and trouble, I turn the energy utility into a bubble." (Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't bubble.

MR. GARDOM: It may be humorous but it's fact. What this is

doing is violating some very basic principles — ethic,

moral, legal, constitutional and very good political

principles. There are two of these, the first being the right

to sue the Crown — the right to let an individual, an

energy utility, a corporation, a man, a woman, a child, a

partnership, a feme sole, a feme covert or a feme uncovert,

whatever it may be — the right to have his or her day in

court. Secondly, it precludes the right to a similar sort of an

individual for any kind of fair compensation for public

expropriation.

The debate today has done one very remarkable thing.

Mirabile dictu. At long last, if nothing else, it has brought

the Social Credit Party out of the morass that they've been

sitting in for 20 years. They've suddenly discovered that in

the Province of British Columbia you don't have the right to

sue the Crown and you don't have the right for fair

compensation. I'm delighted to hear that they've come out with

such strong words today and such valid principles.

But why were you so quiet over the past 20 years, when these

very things were asked in this very Legislature and argued and

argued over and over and over again and advanced over and over

and over again?

Mr. Attorney General, if we had the very two safeguards that I'm talking about

now, the right to sue the Crown in the Province of B.C. — and surely to

[ Page

2843 ]

goodness the concept that the Crown can do no wrong should have perished with

the divine right of kings. If we had that right and, secondly, instead of this

government — as did the old — continuing to treat the great commissions that

we've had on expropriation laws in B.C. — the Clyne commission and the one that

came about as a result of the law reform commission last year — if you would

stop treating these as vintage wine and pull out the cork. Let's have a little

bit of effective legal and ethical principle come into the province. This debate

today would have been cut down to about 25 minutes if those two rights were

here. They were not here.

I cannot support this

section for the reasons that I've

advanced. I think it's a disgraceful section.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 115 pass?

Section 115 approved.

Section 116 approved.

section 117.

MR. GARDOM: Just one quick word…

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My apologies for not

waiting until you addressed me.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Your apologies are accepted.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Here we have the

right to the court of appeal, which we have talked about ad

nauseam today upon any question of law or excessive

jurisdiction, but not on questions of fact.

The Attorney General was the first to admit that it was a

pretty strong Act. This is the strongest Act of its kind in

Canada that has been introduced today. He says there might be a

few problems in it but really nothing to worry about, because

"We're going to take it easy."

Yet under the statute the only appeals he grants are ones on

questions of law or excessive jurisdiction. But there's no

consistency to the Hon. Attorney General's position. Because

when we advanced and introduced into the House earlier in the

session this rather innocuous little bill dealing with credit

reporting which, if memory serves, was Bill 48 — under

that particular bill if a debt collection agent had difficulty

with his licence, he had the right to go to the court on a

question of fact and have a brand new trial.

Yet here where we have, as the Member from Peace illustrated time after time

after time today, something that affects all sides of the petroleum industry

and every energy in the province, save and except natural lightning as I said

yesterday, it comes to a full stop on questions of appeal on errors of fact.

Now, there can well be the grossest errors in determination

of fact. We all know that. That's why we have juries. That's

how the jury system came into being — to judge and weigh

the facts. Yet there's an appeal from the finding of a common

jury, of a special jury, of an assize jury, of a county court

jury, whatever it may be, to the court of appeal. Look at the

historical precedent for that — going back 400 to 500

years at least.

Yet here it's precluded. I think it's a wrong thing. I'm not

going to say any more about it because we canvassed the point

earlier today. But I feel very strongly that this

section is

far from as inclusive as it should be. It should permit appeals

on questions of fact as well.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 117 pass?

Section 117 approved.

Sections 118 to 125 inclusive approved.

section 126.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER:

Section 126 gives the commissars appointed by

the energy commission the right to have municipally-elected

officials fined up to an amount of $2,000. I can't understand

why appointed people can be put in this position of power over

local elected people, who are no doubt doing their job

protecting the public property of a municipality, in the case

of lanes or streets. But if they defy these people, they can be

fined $2,000 for it. I would ask that this

section be

withdrawn.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. Again that same

section

we're discussing here is enshrined in the Public Utilities

Act , but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's right.

It's there in the Public Utilities Act and it shouldn't

be there. It should be withdrawn.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 126 pass?

Section 126 approved.

Sections 127 to 151 inclusive approved with amendment.

section 152.

[ Page 2844 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. FRASER: Explain it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. Do you really want it

explained? Well… (Laughter). I gave this explanation in

second reading. Somebody was so badly out of order that they

asked me this particular question on second reading. I was so

badly out of order that I replied to it. I'm sure that the

answer is still fresh in the minds of the committee.

(Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the Minister's

name pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 152 approved with amendment.

Sections 153 to 194 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, I move the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports that

several divisions took place and asks leave that they be

recorded in the Journals .

Leave granted.

Bill No. 148, Energy Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

CATTLE INDUSTRY

DEVELOPMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 32; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I would like to move an

amendment to

section 4, lines 2 and 3 by deleting the words "purchaser or class

of purchasers who purchase" and substituting the words "cattle seller or class

of cattle sellers who sell."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's no connection with that. No, it's

simply a matter of who is paying the levy. It's clarifying

that. It is the seller who is actually paying the levy,

collected by the purchaser, but it's not deducted from the

purchaser's returns, if you like. It's the seller who has to

pay the levy. It's just a question who pays. It doesn't affect

the definition of the fact that this is a tax and thus

unconstitutional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments standing in the name of

the Minister of Agriculture to

section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved with amendments.

section 5.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to

section 5 which deletes the present

section 5 and substitutes

the following: "Every cattle seller shall pay at the time of

the cattle sale the levy created by subsection 1 of

section 4

and shall submit the levy to the fund at such times and in such

manner as is prescribed by the Minister."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The same question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The same answer. This hasn't changed the

nature of the levy at all. It's still essentially a tax for the

purposes of the definition.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 6, deleting the word "member" as was correctly pointed

out by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I believe — or no,

perhaps it was the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

"Member" is not really appropriate in this bill. It should

read "cattle seller."

Amendment approved.

[ Page

2845 ]

Sections 6 approved.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I move an amendment, deleting the words

— and this is the Scott Wallace amendment — "or to

imprison." No? Again, in any case we did listen, Mr.

Chairman.

Deleting the words "or to imprison for a term not exceeding

90 days…" So there's no reference at all to

imprisonment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Speaking to the amendment, we just

wonder whether the Attorney General or yourself have had the

opportunity of investigating the correctness or otherwise of

throwing a guy in jail for less than 90 days in jail, perhaps

under an ultra vires bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 32, Cattle Industry Development Act reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FARMERS' LAND-

CLEARING ASSISTANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 36; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 36,

An Act to Amend the Farmers' Land-Clearing

Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON.

MR. BARRETT : Committee on Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 42; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All agreements are off. All agreements

were off last night. Your Whip walked out.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

section 1.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper on p.14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to simply discuss the

procedural problems we're facing here. Is it the intention of

the government to proceed with this bill throughout until

completion this evening until 11 o'clock, for example? We have

agreed today within our party to sit today, and the

Conservatives also agreed with the government last night when

it was requested.

But this is a contentious bill, and I really don't feel that

we should start it on the sixth day of a six-day week at this

time of night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, then, I suggest the Whips get

together and come to some kind of agreement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it was our understanding that we

would not be picking up Bill 42 at 4:30 on a Saturday

afternoon. It is a contentious bill, perhaps the most

contentious of the session. I just think that in the interests

of good will and co-operation around the House it would be

advisable to at least start this up next week.

[ Page 2846 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can only suggest that this matter be

dealt with by the Whips.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can we assume now that the Whips are

consulting on it? Is that the position?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know either. I'll check

with our Whip. But the problem that we face is that we were

quite willing to agree with the government last night that we

sit on Saturday because of the difficulty they are facing with

their legislation…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This is not a matter for

consideration by this committee. Shall the amendments to

section 1…?

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order…the Premier has said

that the Whips agreed, and it's quite evident according to our

own Whip that the government has broken that agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. Will the

Hon. Member be seated?

I would point out that the matter that may be dealt with by

the Whips is of no concern to this committee. The committee is

to deal with the bill as instructed.

MR. WALLACE: I wish to point out that the government Whip

has taken no initiative to call a meeting today. I think that

should be on the record.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no business of the

Whips of concern to this committee and we will proceed with the

business of the House. I would ask that we confine our

discussion to the amendments that have been proposed by the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture to

section 1.

MR. CHABOT: I'll never take your word again. There's been double-crossing

and trickery. Double-crossing!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did move the amendments standing in

my name on the order paper to

section 1 on p. 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments pass?

Amendments approved.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments

standing in my name on the order paper, p.15.

Amendments approved.

MR. GARDOM: On the amendment that is on the order paper to

section 2, Mr. Chairman, in the name of my colleague from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is not possible, upon

consulting authorities, for one Member to introduce amendments

on behalf of another private Member, according to our rules.

Unless they are put in your own name.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'll propose the amendment myself, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is in order, yes. With leave.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is to the effect of deleting the

existing subsection 1 and establishing the following, and I

would like to read what the addition is.

The addition is this, as l(a): "The commission is directly

responsible to the Legislative Assembly and each member of the

commission shall hold office during good behaviour for a term

of three years, and may be reappointed for a further term of

three years but may be removed at any time for cause."

In moving the amendment, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we have

in this suggestion here something that is far more logical and

far more practical than that which has been proposed by the

Hon….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor. I would ask that the

other Members not interrupt him.

MR. GARDOM: You'll notice under the

section prepared by the

government, Mr. Chairman to you, Mr. Minister, that it is to

hold office during pleasure. It's a completely open-ended

situation. The purpose of the amendment is to say that they

will only hold office during good behaviour and for a term of

three years. They can be re-appointed.

We think this is much more logical. Under your definition of the term of office,

there's absolutely nothing. It's totally open-ended. We have suggested a definite

period. We think that your term of office and

[ Page 2847 ]

your mode of holding office is

too broad. I respectfully move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The government is not prepared to accept

that amendment. I say this very advisedly at this time.

When this bill was introduced in second reading I made it

quite clear then that we would consider amendments in this

session and that there would also likely be amendments at the

next session of the Legislature, whenever that might be. That's

why I say that in this particular respect we will not consider

an amendment at this time.

I'll tell you why. Your suggestion that it be for three

years sounds very logical. On the other hand, we feel that the

work of this commission is going to change very markedly, not

within three years but even within one year. In the first

period of perhaps even a few months, the commission is going to

have a very particular job. I'm not suggesting that there will

be a wholesale changeover in commission members within a matter

of months. But I am suggesting that at least during the early

days of this commission — when I say "days" that could

mean months or a year — the work of the commission may be

quite different from its work in the second and third

years.

So for this opening period at least the government would

prefer to leave it as is in the original wording, leaving open

the possibility that by the time of the next session we might

then consider changing it so that it would be for a specific

term.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister has made very good sense with his

explanation, although I would like to hear from him concerning

his proposal. He really talked about the initial stages. But in

principle are you in favour of restricting their term of

office? It's open-ended. A gentleman could be a commissioner to

114 years of age, God willing. If he was effective, that might

be a good thing. But we feel very strongly that there should be

a limitation upon the period of time in which they hold this

very demanding and commanding office in the Province of British

Columbia, which is absolutely saddled with responsibility.

Among other things, it's a very good thing to till the soil

occasionally. People should not become too crustacean in their

ways. There could well be the need for the turnover. That's why

we've suggested it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Point Grey pass?

Amendment negatived.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT : I understand that it was not a deal but an

arrangement. I wasn't aware of it. Because of that, I move that

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's obvious there's some confusion

between the three party Whips.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not in the slightest confused. There was

absolutely no arrangement that came to my desk from either the

government Whip, the Conservative Whip, or the Social Credit

Whip. I understood that there would be some decision made last

night. There was no decision made to my knowledge.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Apparently a conversation took place. On

the strength of that conversation, I'm asking that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHABOT: Last night when I asked the Premier across the

floor what the order of business would be the following day, he

suggested that I contact the Whip. That was at 11:30 last

night. I did go and see the Whip immediately. He told me that

we would finish the Attorney General and that we would move to

Municipal Affairs, Mines and Agriculture.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the information I have now.

Apparently it wasn't shared with all the Whips, nor was I aware

of it. My Whip wouldn't report to me until he had contacted the

others. Because of that confusion, I want to say that nobody is

at fault. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I think it's quite understandable that there

can be some confusion. But in light of this, if the opposition

wish to re-open the two votes that have passed when we do go on

to the bill — there's some thought that we may —

would the Premier be willing…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we'll just leave them where they are.

I move the committee rise right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it a point of order?

[ Page 2848 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. I think that Hansard will reveal

where the Premier advised us two days ago that the order of

business would be Municipal Affairs, Mines and Agriculture.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) explained, there was a conversation last night. It was

agreed upon at the end of the conversation. It was not related

to the two other Whips, nor was it related to me. Because of

that and what I've heard now, I think there's been confusion. I

don't think anybody is to blame or anything else. It was just a

breakdown in communication. Because of that, I'm suggesting

that the committee rise. I think that that's the best way to

settle the matter at this point.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 120, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPAL FINANCE

AUTHORITY OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 120; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 175,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance

Authority of British Columbia Act , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 175, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPAL ACT

House in committee on Bill No 175; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1to 15 inclusive approved with amendments.

section 16.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): With respect to

section 16, the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and I have

discussed this. If I may, I would point out that the execution

of what is intended in

section 16, while commendable in

attempting to tell as many people as possible about a proposed

rezoning or land use contract, the execution is going to be

extremely difficult indeed, if not impossible.

I would draw the committee's attention to the fourth and

fifth lines: "Notice of a hearing on a rezoning or land use

contract must be mailed to the owners and occupiers of all real

property," et cetera. To identify the occupiers of

property on a fairly regular basis, if the rezoning activity is

quite frequent, is going to be very difficult and will create

considerable problems for the clerk's office in a municipality

or for the secretary's office in a regional district.

If the Minister wishes, he will admit that this is a problem

and probably will require an amendment very quickly.

I know that some municipalities have followed the letter of

the law previously and have simply run a very small classified

advertisement in some newspaper. A number of people who would

have liked to appear at a public hearing, who would have liked

to comment on a proposed rezoning or land use contract have

found after the fact that the rezoning hearing had been held.

And that's most unfortunate.

I suggest it would have been much better in

section 16 if

the province had required municipalities to run larger

advertisements of a certain minimum size in the display

section

of the newspaper and to have used other means to notify people

in a given neighbourhood or a given part of the municipality or

indeed over all of the municipality.

But, Mr. Chairman, picture if you will the carrying out of

the requirement of notices mailed not just to the owners but to

the occupiers. As observation has been made in the corridor on

this particular

section and in a couple of municipalities,

there are illegal suites in any municipality and there are

occupiers of real property who are not known to the

municipality.

I suggest that

section 16 is going to be very, very awkward

indeed if the intent is to be carried out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister

[ Page 2849 ]

of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As mentioned by the Hon. Member, we have

discussed this question and we realize there may be some

difficulties in the mechanics involved. However, I would point

out that the reason for the term "occupiers" is so that people

who are residing in apartments will also have a say in the

construction on the property adjoining the property on which

they live. We feel that tenants should have a say as well as

owners of a property.

The second thing is that in subsection (

b) of

section 16 it

does state that the council proposing the bylaw state in the

bylaw the distance in which notice should be given. Whether the

notice is to be given will be controlled by the local council

or the local district.

We will keep a close look on this

section and if

difficulties do in fact occur, we shall have to take another

look at it at the next sitting.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: Could the Minister please inform us, Mr.

Chairman, whether or not he's considered simply making the

normal provision of reasonable notice. If you put that in,

obviously it would have to be in the area where the people are

affected. Obviously if it can be done better by advertisement

than by mail, it could be done that way. It would provide a

certain flexibility.

Reading this in a legalistic way, it almost indicates that

every single person must receive a letter before they can

proceed with their hearing. I have quickly written out an

amendment which might take care of this, which would delete all

words following "bylaw" in line 4, and then substitute after

that word "bylaw": "provide reasonable notice of hearing on a

rezoning or land use contract." This would, in my mind, get

around the dilemma that the Hon. Member for Saanich has made

very clear to this committee. If it's in order, I might

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this be put forward.

I have had a very brief moment to discuss it with the Hon.

Member for Saanich and he agrees this type of thing, in his

experience as the mayor of a municipality in this area, might

be better in that it allows some flexibility which this

section, as presently worded does not.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not prepared to accept that

amendment. I think it will make it worse than it is at the present time. "Reasonable

notice" is what we have now and that's why this amendment is there to change

that. I know in many places it's done reasonably, but in other areas it isn't

done reasonably. That is the reason we have this wording in. I suggest that

if there is any big problem we can certainly take another look at it in another

session, but I'm not prepared to amend it at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Through you Mr. Chairman, if they're not

following the present law, what indication do you have that

they will follow any amendment you're putting in?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, the question of "reasonable" is in

the beholder's eyes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the inflexibility

being shown on this matter is really disturbing. The government

has goofed on this particular section. In the several months or perhaps the

year between the end of this session when this becomes law and

the next session of the Legislature, any number of legitimate,

desirable, rezoning applications, rezoning processes, as

desirable as they may be to all of the community, can be upset

by someone saying after the fact, "I'm an occupier and I didn't

get my letter."

Now let's have a little reasonableness on this point. You've

goofed, through you Mr. Chairman; you've made a mistake. Let's

fix it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): I live in a riding which

has a lot of tenants in it. Although I am very sympathetic to

the municipal council and the difficulties they may have

putting this into effect, the fact of the matter is that there

are a lot of people living in houses which are going to be torn

down and apartments built on that spot, or are going to be

rezoned for one reason or another, who are not notified for the

simple reason that they do not buy newspapers.

There are a lot of people who read the Press only on the

weekends and there are a lot of people who read the notices and

have no knowledge or realization that it is affecting the

particular house or the particular block they are living in.

The only way we can safeguard this and be sure that everyone

knows what is happening to the particular place they are living

in is to ensure that this thing goes out to them. I would

suggest that if we're amending it, we say it should be by

registered mail, not just by mail. Surely we shouldn't soften

this one bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 2850 ]

MR. GARDOM: One word on the practicality of the matter as

indicated by the Member from Saanich and also from Victoria.

Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you should give thought to the mailing

constituting notice. At least restrict it to mailing

constituting notice as opposed to the receipt of mailing. You

can get into a situation where 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 or 15 people

for any reason may not receive it, or allege they did not

receive it, and upset your rezoning.

You've got a tiger by the tail on the text the way it reads

now. I think the Member for Saanich made a very valid point and

I subscribe to the sentiments mentioned by the lady Member for

Burrard, but I do feel that the

section the way it reads…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, as long as you are satisfied with that;

still, it's a little ambiguous to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment standing in the name of

the Second Member for Victoria pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Chairman, in

section 17, it seems

to me that it must be an oversight that street lighting has

been left out. It should have been after boulevards, I

think.

In many subdivisions where there is a development, the

developers put in street lighting in any case without it having

to be in the bylaw. But sometimes it doesn't happen and the

moment the developer is gone the people who have moved into the

homes are looking for street lighting and the taxpayers are

faced with that expense.

It seems to me that in most cases it happens without it

being in the bylaw, but it ought to be there in the Act so that

the municipal councils can put it in their bylaws.

I think it's an oversight and I hope the Minister will just

add it.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It can be included under

section 17.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we continue on and come back

section 17 when the amendment is prepared?

section 18.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Chairman, there is something on

section 18 as

well. In the

section where it says: "standards prescribed in

the by-law prior to the approval of the subdivision," it

should be the subdivision plan, I believe. Not approval of the

subdivision as such, but approval of the subdivision plan.

And then also in (

a) where it says, "the owner of the land

deposits with the municipality a bond;" I think that should be

security deposit." A bond is sometimes interpreted as something

quite different and sometimes the municipalities get into a

great deal of trouble in deciding what really is a bond.

I wonder if the Minister would consider that?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I think that the plan, the

subdivision plan or the subdivision — I don't know if

there is any difference, really. The question of a bond we'll

consider for the next session anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 18 pass?

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN:

section 19, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the

Minister if he could clarify this for us. My understanding is

that it is, of course, for the preservation of heritage

buildings within municipalities or regional districts, and the

procedure used is simply in effect zoning these sites with no

provision for compensation. Is this correct?

HON. MR. LORIMER: That is correct.

MRS. JORDAN: Am I right then, Mr. Chairman, in understanding

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in bringing in this

bill that has needed a lot of amendments already, has brought

in a

section which would allow municipalities to look upon

perhaps a person's home or farm or adjoining land as being of

historical value to the community and could literally

confiscate that land by zoning?

Well, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) has brought

up the church, and that's a good point. What he's empowering

the City of Vancouver to do in this Act is to confiscate Christ

Church Cathedral.

HON. MR. LORIMER : There's no confiscation provisions in

it.

[ Page 2851 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, when you've put your question

would you be seated so that the Hon. Minister can respond?

MRS. JORDAN: I'll be seated so the Minister can respond. But

I want to ask him more questions.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I think what you're saying is

correct, except there are no confiscation procedures in here.

There is a designation procedure where a council can designate

heritage buildings.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister says that it's just

designation not confiscation; there are no confiscatory powers in the bill. It may not be spelled out,

Mr. Minister, but I suggest to you that there are many

instances in British Columbia where people are living in homes,

as an example, which might very well and do have historic value

to that community.

If the city council could designate an historic site on the

advice of their heritage foundation that they've set up, while

they wouldn't take it over, the owners are left in a position

where their property which well might be worth $1,000, $5,000,

$25,000, $50,000, or $100,000 if it was to be marketed, would

be left on their hands and they might want to sell and move

away. They might die, as happens. The widow might be left with

this property on her hands…

HON. MR. LORIMER: It's the destruction of the building

that's being protected, not the question of sale or anything

else.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'll sit down if the Minister would

clarify that, because I think this is an issue, Mr. Chairman,

which must be clarified and debated in this House.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This doesn't prevent any sales. All it

does is preserve old buildings that are considered to be of

heritage value or historic value. and that doesn't in any way

prevent sale of property. It has nothing to do with property

itself, but buildings, and it doesn't prevent the sale of

buildings.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says it

doesn't prevent sale, and that's a very nice thought. But would

he please tell me if I own a house and the adjacent land on an

historic site — which might be in an agricultural area

and could be of 10 acres and would not be allowed to be

subdivided under another Act that may come up for debate in

this House — and I can sell it, but it's declared an

historic site and it can't be torn down and it can't be used

for anything and the land can't be subdivided, who would buy

it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there may be the odd old house lying

around, but there are not many MacMillans in this province and

there certainly aren't going to be many in the future. Nobody

is going to have any money if this government keeps going.

But, Mr. Minister, I think your statement is really subject

to question, if not in fact ludicrous. You are bringing…

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's your opinion.

MRS. JORDAN: You are bringing legislation into this House

which is going to give a municipal council such as the City of

Kelowna — where you arbitrarily brought in thousands and

thousands of acres of land, some of which does contain historic

sites, I'm sure. People live in those homes, on that land. It

can't be subdivided. You leave a widow or a marriage-partner or

children in a position that through zoning they are going to be

left with nothing but a building with which nothing can be

done. And there's no provision for compensation.

If the Act, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister,

allowed the heritage advisory committee to make recommendations

to council, if it allowed the heritage advisory committee to

raise funds for fair compensation for what it and council are

going to designate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: But that is only to defray the expenses of the

heritage advisory committee itself. There's no clarification as

to whether or not th